Wiped off the map?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Until then, stop trying to digress away from the subject of this thread.

Pointing out that the subject of this thread is a six year old piece of news that is irrelevant in 2012 is not "trying to digress away from the subject of this thread".

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Any idiot knows Iran won't bomb Israel unless they are attacked first, so what does it matter what Romney says in the context of seeming tough and "conservative" for the GOP primaries?

It matters if Romney becomes president and decides to attack first based on his claim that Iran is a threat to Israel. It matters because of his baseless claim that Iran will attack first if they acquire a nuclear weapon.

And no, any idiot does not know that. Romney is getting plenty of votes. I think that is proof enough.

Originally posted by FMF
Pointing out that the subject of this thread is a six year old piece of news that is irrelevant in 2012 is not "trying to digress away from the subject of this thread".

Irrelevant?

It is not irrelevant at all. Israel wants to bomb Iran and suck us into the conflict. Romney and Santorum are claiming Iran is a threat to other countries and are both campaigning on the claim that Iran should not have a nuclear program, even if there is no evidence that it is anything other than a peaceful nuclear power program.

Romney is either a deliberate liar or a complete idiot. Either way he is unfit to be president. The same can be said of Santorum as well.

Saying it is irrelevant is an extremely stupid statement. You should know better.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
It matters if Romney becomes president and decides to attack first based on his claim that Iran is a threat to Israel. It matters because of his baseless claim that Iran will attack first if they acquire a nuclear weapon.

And no, any idiot does not know that. Romney is getting plenty of votes. I think that is proof enough.

So for Romney voters the Iranian issue is the primary factor in determining their vote for him? Are you serious?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Irrelevant?

Yes. What Ahadinejad said six years ago is irrelevant.

The transliteration is probably closer to "Imam (Khomeini) said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time." But that's not especially interesting, even if its meaning is quite different to the reported quote if you think about it.

What is interesting is where the (mis)translation originated: the Iranian state broadcaster INRA. In fact, INRA gave several different translations immediately after the speech in question, none of which bear much resemblance to the transliteration:

"The Qods occupier regime should be eliminated from the surface of the earth."
"The Qods occupier regime should be wiped from the map of the earth."
"The Qods occupying regime must be eliminated from the surface of earth."

Woops!

Even if every western media outlet disavowed the (mis)translation today, Iran itself has already allowed the damage to be done with their own mistranslation.

Originally posted by DrKF
The transliteration is probably closer to "Imam (Khomeini) said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time." But that's not especially interesting, even if its meaning is quite different to the reported quote if you think about it.

What is interesting is where the (mis)translation originated: the Iranian state broadcaster INRA ...[text shortened]... elf[/i] has already allowed the damage to be done with their own mistranslation.

How is this more objectionable than Bill Clinton's call for regime change in Iraq?

Are we forced to conclude that Bill Clinton was a madman who could not be trusted with access to a nuclear arsenal?

I don't see anything wrong with Iran's alleged "wipe Israel of the map" rhetoric in comparison to the US's and Israel's slightly less rhetoric warmongering anyways (Israel and the US start wars, Iran hasn't).

Eventually it's very simple:
If we suggest: "Jerusalem will be a dual capital to both the Palestinians and the Isreali's."

Who's going to say no?
Wipe them off the map and, voila, the problem is solved.

And yes, that's just rhetoric. I don't really think groups of people should be murdered.

Originally posted by spruce112358
How is this more objectionable than Bill Clinton's call for regime change in Iraq?

Are we forced to conclude that Bill Clinton was a madman who could not be trusted with access to a nuclear arsenal?

Too fast, too presumptuous: I didn't make comment on whether or not it was 'objectionable', I just tried to flesh out the story a bit. I found the call for regime change in Iraq objectionable, and history has proved us both to have made a good call, assuming you also found it objectionable. (Whatever happened to the 'spruce doctrine', though - surely by that creed one was more objectionable than the other?) The Iranian statement is equally objectionable, yes, but since when did two wrongs make a right?

As it happens, one of the only ways in which I agree with noted lunatic Ron Paul is with regards to Western hypocrisy over a nuclear Iran and the unnecessary brinksmanship on display that looks like a straight line to yet another Middle East war. Even if the Iranians develop the capability for a nuclear weapon, does not mean they will build (let alone use) one, as the history of nuclear weapons demonstrates; nothing in the history of nuclear weapons points to regional proliferation even when a belligerent regional player develops nuclear weapons; the USSR were characterised by a bellicose media as unflinching, (nuclear) trigger-happy radicals eager to unleash a nuclear holocaust, but no such thing happened because they were not.

But the Iranians do themselves no favours with that sort of talk. They increase the brinksmanship, when wiser heads might reduce it. Whether it is more, less or equally objectionable to Western demands for regime change is immaterial.

It is, however, also disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that 'regime change in Israel', as the Iranians understand it, would not involve the expulsion (at a bare minimum) of the Jewish population of Israel. Luckily, that is a fantasy, like regime change to spread western liberal democracy.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So for Romney voters the Iranian issue is the primary factor in determining their vote for him? Are you serious?

Did I say that? No, I didn't.

People certainly are not rejecting him because of it though. If Ron Paul said something that was so obviously false the corporate news media would be all over it and I suspect you would too.

What I am implying is that people are believing Romney's retoric. There are plenty of idiots in my country that believe it. Heck, there are people on this forum that believe it. My point is that you are wrong. Any idiot does not realize what we do.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Did I say that? No, I didn't.

People certainly are not rejecting him because of it though. If Ron Paul said something that was so obviously false the corporate news media would be all over it and I suspect you would too.

What I am implying is that people are believing Romney's retoric. There are plenty of idiots in my country that believe it. Heck, ...[text shortened]... forum that believe it. My point is that you are wrong. Any idiot does not realize what we do.

There are plenty of idiots in my country that believe it.-Metal Brain

Are you so worked up over all of Obamas lies ?! Probably not. I don't recall you ever posting about that.
You sound like the quintessential kool-aid drinker to me. 🙄

Originally posted by FMF
Yes. What Ahadinejad said six years ago is irrelevant.

If it was irrelevant Utherpendragon would not be using this issue in debates. More importantly, Romney made it relevant when he brought it up in the debates, especially because it was a completely false interpretation that people like Utherpendragon bought into. See the "War with Iran" thread.

Originally posted by utherpendragon

There are plenty of idiots in my country that believe it.-Metal Brain

Are you so worked up over all of Obamas lies ?! Probably not. I don't recall you ever posting about that.
You sound like the quintessential kool-aid drinker to me. 🙄

I have pointed out Obama's lies on plenty of occasions here on this forum. Where have you been????

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I have pointed out Obama's lies on plenty of occasions here on this forum. Where have you been????

Such as.....?